Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The Secretary of State said: “There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.” I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?
The deployment of HMS Dragon means that we have left a gap in our commitment to be the flagship of the Standing NATO Maritime Group One. HMS Duncan is already tasked to go on Operation Firecrest to the High North, and HMS Dauntless is still in the fleet time support period. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that we will be able to fulfil our commitment to NATO in providing the flagship role, and can he guarantee that it will be provided by a British ship?
20. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.
I recently launched my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton business club. Many who joined are independent hospitality and leisure businesses, and their No.1 concern is how difficult it is to take on new staff under this Government. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of the Treasury’s new jobs tax, and the Government’s new employment regulations, on job creation in coastal constituencies such as mine? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to mitigate those effects?
I thank the Minister for recognising that we need to legislate to protect children with allergies in schools. Can she reassure us that the Benedict Blythe Foundation, Helen and the MPs who have campaigned for this will see the amendment at the very earliest opportunity before it goes to the Lords, so we can ensure that Benedict’s law is delivered in full?
This is not about the ability of parents; it is about recognising that social media platforms are being weaponised by algorithms—let alone by hostile states—to make children addicted to them. It is impossible for parents to protect their children who do not have the critical thinking skills before 16. Having worked in counter-terrorism, I know that it is critical thinking that stops people from getting on planes to blow themselves up in foreign countries. The No. 2 cause of stroke in women under 40 is being strangled during sex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is because they have been told on the internet that they can be safely strangled? They cannot. We have to protect our children, because it is impossible for them to police things or have the critical thinking skills to protect themselves when they are on the internet.
Lords amendment 105 is named Benedict’s law for Benedict Blythe, who was just five years old when he suffered a fatal anaphylactic reaction at school after being exposed to allergens. No child should go to school in the morning feeling anxious that they will not be safe, and no parent should fear at drop-off that they may never pick up their child again, but that was the unfortunate reality for Helen and Peter Blythe. Since that day, they have fought to make sure that every child is safer in school. Benedict’s law would ensure that every school has a mandatory allergy policy and holds spare adrenalin medications on site, and that every member of staff is trained and knows how to protect children. One in three schools in our country currently has none of those things, but we would not have known that if it was not for Helen’s campaigning for the Benedict Blythe Foundation. That is why this law is needed. I offer my thanks to the Government. The statutory guidance to which they have committed is a real step forward, and today’s announcement that the Government will accept our amendment by tabling it in the Government’s name is welcome. It finishes the job, and means that full protections will finally be in place. Every measure that protects a child with allergies is a good thing, and I am so relieved that we have reached this point. I drafted the Benedick Blythe amendment last September, and I pay tribute to Harry Warren and my team, with whom I have campaigned throughout this time. When the amendment was put to the Lords, the Government whipped their peers to vote against it. I thank every noble Lord who voted for it, because they brought us here today. The Government had told me that legislation was not needed. When the guidance was announced, we welcomed it, but we said that it did not go far enough. That is why we pushed our amendment to a vote. We are glad the Government now recognise that the guidance does not go far enough, largely because we were determined to push the amendment to a vote. We will need to see the wording of the amendment as soon as possible, because in the Lords we learned that guidance can be given and guidance can be taken away. There was a view that a threat of losing what little had been offered would deter Helen Blythe, and that misjudged her entirely. I am willing to draw a line under this, but I put it on the record that I want the Government to maintain their resolve and make sure the amendment is laid, because on Tuesday last week we received a letter telling all of us in this place that the amendment would be voted down and was not needed. On Friday, that was still the Government’s position, which is why they missed the deadline to lay their own amendment. I want to turn to the financing of this amendment. The Government do not plan to provide funding to schools for the medications needed to protect children having anaphylactic shock. That is not the right approach. It currently costs the taxpayer about £9 million to provide the additional adrenalin auto-injectors prescribed to children to take into school individually. By altering the distribution method, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation has recommended, the new measures in Benedict’s law could save the Treasury £1 million a year. Just as with defibrillators, which the Conservative Government funded for all schools, we are asking the Government to fund medications to save the taxpayer money. These savings are before we consider the estimated £1.5 million saved by reducing A&E and hospital admissions, improvements in school attendance and parental workforce participation. I ask the Government to look at that again as they draft the amendment for the Lords. I want to close by paying tribute to Helen Blythe. Her asks have really been very simple: “Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”. That is why we come to this place—to protect those who need us—and I am so proud to have been able to stand beside Helen in her fight. I ask colleagues today to hold Benedict in their hearts tonight. I know that today is a good day, but such a promise will only be worthy of him when it is kept and when children become safer in our schools.
Last Saturday, hundreds of people from across my constituency came together on a march, led by Mr and Mrs Edwards and David Smith from Aldridge, on the importance of the green belt for our communities. May we have a debate in Government time on the benefits of the green belt for our communities and our environment?
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) on securing this important debate, and the independent commission on palliative and end-of-life care on the amazing work that it has undertaken? Its report certainly provides an important contribution to the discussion about how we ensure that people receive compassionate and high-quality care at the end of life. This debate is important. There is a saying that nothing is certain in life other than death and taxes, but it seems that we spend an awful lot of time in this place talking about taxes, and until recently we have not really talked about death. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), who said that we have gone into assisted dying but rather missed or leapfrogged the important debate around palliative care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his tribute to Dougie Mac, and to all colleagues who have made representations and congratulated hospices on the amazing work that they do around the country. We also heard moving contributions from the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and for Worcester (Tom Collins). These debates are even more powerful when we talk about personal experiences that we have been through, and I thank them for sharing those. For me, palliative care is about dignity, compassion and choice at the most difficult moments in people’s lives. When it works well, it relieves suffering, supports families, and allows people to spend their final days in the place and manner that they choose. Before coming to the House I had the privilege of working for 16 years in the hospice movement in both children and adult hospices, and with organisations supporting families whose loved ones were edging towards the end of their life. Many of those were supporting the families of children who had life-limiting conditions. That experience has stayed with me and informed how seriously I take this debate, because I saw first-hand the extraordinary compassion and professionalism of the people who provide such care, and the profound difference that it makes to families facing unimaginable circumstances. When it comes to children, no parent expects to outlive their child. Often those parents would say to me that when they realised that their child was living with a life-limiting condition, it meant that their dreams and aspirations changed. Suddenly they were not thinking about their child’s first day at school or university, or their wedding day; they were changing their whole aspect and plan for that child’s life. That is why hospices and palliative care services are so important, and they support more than 300,000 people every year. Much has been said about the wonderful Dame Cicely Saunders, but we should also pay tribute to Sister Frances Dominica, who set up the first children’s hospice in the UK. There was a wonderful saying in children’s hospices that I always used to relay: they cannot add days to their lives, but they can add life to their days. That shows how important hospices are to so many families. Hospices are a vital part of our health system because they are relieving pressure on hospitals and providing specialist care in communities across the country. Hospices are not an optional extra in our health system—they are a core part of how our compassionate healthcare should work. Seeing adults and children get the care that they needed at the end of their lives, as I did at Hope House children’s hospice, East Lancashire adult hospice and Martin House children’s hospice, was phenomenal. It is no wonder that our hospice movement has been world-leading. However, the sector is under increasing strain. Hospice leaders report rising costs, workforce shortages and growing demand for services at the very moment that they are struggling. Across the country, we are seeing reductions in services, bed closures and significant financial pressures. As many hon. Members have said, Hospice UK has warned that two in five hospices are now cutting or reducing services. I know that concerns every Member of the House. The Government will point to recent announcements about capital funding for hospices and the continuation of the children’s hospice grant, and those investments are welcome. But capital investment and capital funding cannot pay for nurses, doctors or the day-to-day delivery of care. What the sector needs is sustainable revenue funding. As a former head of fundraising, I know that capital fundraising is often the easiest, because people want to buy a new building or a piece of equipment, and paying the wages is never as, dare I say, sexy. As many hon. Members have said, children’s palliative care also faces challenges. Children with life-limiting conditions and their families require specialist care that supports them from diagnosis through to the end of life and beyond. I remember one parent saying to me that if he got up eight times in the night to his daughter, he would consider that he had had a good night’s sleep— I cannot imagine what that must be like. I also saw siblings having a different life from those of their school friends because their brother or sister needed extra, additional care. Children’s hospices offer wonderful bereavement support to families, which is another issue that many hon. Members have mentioned. Access to that care remains inconsistent across the country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, evidence suggests that fewer than one in five integrated care boards formally commission specialist children’s palliative care services that meet national standards. There are also serious workforce shortages. England has just over 1,000 community children’s nurses, when safe staffing estimates suggest that nearly 5,000 are required. Across the UK, there are only around 24 specialist paediatric palliative care consultants, when experts estimate between 40 and 60 are needed. For many families that means they cannot access the support they need at home, even when that is their preference. The Government have indicated that they will publish a modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care later this year, which I absolutely welcome and I commend the Government for that. That framework presents a really important opportunity to address the challenges facing the sector. I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I will not repeat the ones that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East mentioned because we all had that briefing. What steps will be taken to address the workforce shortages facing palliative services, particularly community children’s nurses and specialist consultants? What plans do the Department have to ensure that hospices have the sustainable funding required to continue delivering these vital services and protect their independence? I get the call for us not to have so much reliance on fundraising, but there is a real danger that hospices lose that independence if they take that statutory funding. The thing I always noticed was how they were more able to respond very quickly to the needs of individual families than the NHS. It is really important that we safeguard that independence. How will the Government ensure that this opportunity with the new plan seizes the chance to stop that postcode lottery? Will it see where we should firm up some of the guidance to ICBs around the country? Will Ministers look at the innovation that charities are doing in this work around palliative care? I think particularly of Sue Ryder, which is investing in add-on wards at the Airedale general hospital in Yorkshire. It is also focusing more on home services, rather than services in the building, and on getting to more and more patients. It is important that we engage with and learn from it so that we can see it evolving into best practice. There is also a really important issue around transition, which is important for young adults. When I worked at Martin House, we had just opened the teenage unit, which enabled us to have a setting that was a bit more grown up but not old ladyish or old mannish, if I can put it that way; it was an environment suited to the needs of those young people. Thankfully, we now see that these young people are living longer. When I was working at Martin House, young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy would probably come to the end of their life at the age of 18. They are now living into their late 20s, 30s and sometimes even 40s. There needs to be an appropriate environment for those people to have support, because palliative care is one of the most compassionate parts of our health system. The professionals, volunteers and charities that deliver that care do extraordinary work every day, and they deserve a system that supports them and ensures that every patient and family can access the care that they need at the end of life. I hope the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to achieve that.
I thank the Secretary of State for his update. I echo the calls for support for business and keeping an eye on the impact of this crisis on business. For areas like mine in North Yorkshire, off-grid gas and oil customers do not have the same protection as many other energy customers. Will he and his team focus have regard to those customers as this crisis evolves?
When the last Conservative Government rather bizarrely chose to appoint David Cameron as Foreign Secretary in the upper House, the then Opposition—quite rightly in my view—complained about the fact that this House could not directly question the Foreign Secretary. I simply say to the Ministers, who are very hard-working, that they should make representations to their boss that she should appear here more often. The Minister said that we wish to avoid the situation of Iran “sliding into chaos, exploited by extremists”. Does he accept that the problem with Iran is that extremists are in control of the country and have been for 47 years? Does its reaction in attacking more than half a dozen neighbouring countries, none of which had attacked it, not show what it would do if it could get its hands on nuclear weapons? Is he satisfied that when our destroyer eventually gets out there, it will have enough munitions to put up a reliable defensive screen for more than a relatively short period of time?
I fully accept the argument that energy independence will be enhanced by renewable energy and in particular by nuclear energy, but everyone seems to accept that we will continue to have some dependence on fossil fuels for a considerable period of time. Although it is discouraging to hear that no matter how much we extract from the North sea, it will not lower prices—that does sound rather a strange conclusion, but I am willing to accept that it is true—the fact is that if we are going to need such supplies for a considerable period of time, they may be cut off from other sources. Therefore, security of supply is an important element of the mix. Is that not obvious?
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) most warmly on her exemplary record in campaigning for better palliative care. I will address just one segment of her panoramic presentation, namely the work done by the charity that she briefly mentioned, Together for Short Lives. It provided me with a detailed briefing and I apologise in advance if I make some points that others, who may have received the same briefing, anticipate making. Children’s palliative care enables babies, children and young people with life-limiting conditions, life-shortening conditions or severe medical complexity to live as well as possible until they die. Palliative care for children and young people is defined by the charity as “an active and total approach to care, from the point of diagnosis throughout the child’s life, death and beyond.” By embracing physical, emotional, social and spiritual elements, children’s palliative care helps to achieve the best possible quality of life and care for every child with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition and their family. Giving families an opportunity to set out what they need and want is key to this approach. Children’s palliative care is holistic and is provided by a network of services in hospitals, homes and children’s hospices by the NHS and the voluntary sector, including children’s hospices. These services should be planned, funded and provided in a way that enables children and families to access them when and where they need them. The key problem is the one that I am about to set out: “In England, integrated care boards have a legal duty to commission palliative care for children, young people and adults that it considers necessary. Across England and the wider UK, there is huge variance in the extent to which palliative and end of life care for seriously ill children and young people is being formally planned, funded and provided in ways that meet national and regional standards. Of particular concern is children and families’ access to end of life care at home”— we heard this from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos)— “24 hours a day, seven days a week, provided by nurses and supported by advice from consultant paediatricians who have completed sub-specialty training in paediatric palliative medicine (also known as GRID training). Despite some improvements, freedom of information…requests published in March 2025 have revealed that less than a fifth…of ICBs currently commission these services on a formal basis. Meanwhile, over a third…are still failing to meet this established national standard. As a result, many families feel abandoned by a complex system which should support them to provide care once their child is diagnosed.” I have been asked by the charity to raise a rather large number of questions, which I am going to cut down to just six, if I can manage to squeeze them in. The charity stresses the fact that the Government’s decision to allocate up to £80 million in ringfenced NHS funding for children’s hospices in England over the next three years is very welcome, but many challenges remain. These are the six questions that I have picked out of more than a dozen and a half that I was presented with. First, will the Minister confirm that the modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care, which we heard about from the hon. Member for York Central, will explicitly acknowledge the difference between adult and children’s palliative care and ensure that the needs of seriously ill children are not overlooked? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the framework will take a holistic approach and address the wide-ranging needs of seriously ill children and their families, including medical, emotional, social, psychological and practical needs? Thirdly, will the Minister commit to using the upcoming 10-year workforce plan to examine how the existing children’s palliative care workforce can be used as equitably as possible, organising services into NHS-commissioned children’s palliative care operational delivery networks, such as I gather are used in neonatal care services, in order to help to achieve that? Fourthly, can the Minister commit to increasing investment in specialist paediatric palliative medicine training by £2.4 million annually to address the funding gap identified by the charity Together for Short Lives? Fifthly, do the Government support the call of the Royal College of Nursing for nurse-to-patient ratios in all health and care settings? Will they commit to tackling the shortage in NHS community children’s nurses? Finally, with ICB funding for children’s hospices varying significantly across England, how is the Minister ensuring that every seriously ill child and their family, regardless of where they live, has equitable access to palliative care?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing the debate. “Their name liveth for evermore”— Those words are carved on to each stone of remembrance in large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and memorials right around the world. Today’s debate, ahead of Commonwealth Day on Monday 9 March, speaks to that phrase suggested by Rudyard Kipling, as we remember the legacy of those we commemorate. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, once referred to as the Imperial War Graves Commission—the name was altered in 1960, for obvious reasons, when the Commonwealth was formed—represents ultimately six countries whose troops came together from the Commonwealth to serve in the first world war, and again in the second world war. However, along with those six countries, many others are represented, as was alluded to in the first speech. There are Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites in 23,000 locations, and 153 countries and territories. For those who do not know, I previously worked for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and whereas I would formerly have had an hour for such a speech, I obviously have a bit less time this afternoon, but I hope to do its work justice. It is important to reflect on the fact that there are sites right across the world that are impacted by ongoing conflict, but the commission has a commitment to maintaining and upkeeping its sites in perpetuity. For those who do not know, there is a uniformity to the commission’s commemoration. Every single person we are aware of who died in service in the first or second world war receives either a headstone or a memorial. These are different from village and town memorials. They are specific to the commission, and they commemorate those who fell between 4 August 1914 and 31 August 1921, and between 3 September 1939 and 31 December 1947. Those who visit commission sites might notice that some died after the ending of the wars. They may well have died of illness after those dates. In my remaining time, I want to focus on the contribution of Commonwealth troops across the south-west. In my constituency of South West Devon, 137 people from Commonwealth troops are commemorated across 26 sites. Of those, 61 are from the first world war, and they served at least five nations. Plymouth as a whole commemorates over 25,000, most significantly on the naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe, but also right across the city in local churchyards and villages. The role of the CWGC is to commemorate those troops and to tell their stories. A big part of that is a project called “Evermore”. Two years ago, I would have struggled to tell these stories, but members of the public have made their contributions, and we now have much more information about the men and women we commemorate. It is best to share those stories, and that is exactly what I am going to do today. Ernest John Quest would have been a constituent of mine, were he still alive. He was born in Lee Moor and was buried in the Methodist graveyard there. It is a tiny village near the China clay works. It is pretty bleak, but that is where he was born, raised, and ultimately buried. He joined the Australian munitions workers, having gone out to Australia as a British man in his early 20s. He came back towards the end of the war, and served in munitions, to ensure that we had enough equipment to fight the war. He came back at the beginning of 1918 and sadly, by the end of the year, he had died of pneumonia. As he was in the UK doing that work, he could be buried close to home with what would be called a private memorial. He does not have a commission headstone; his family put their own headstone in place for him. The munitions workers came because they were offered a freebie, effectively. They came over here to work and provide that service, but they are key among those whom the commission commemorates, both in the UK and abroad. James Wilson was from an equally small part of my constituency, Yelverton on Dartmoor. Anybody from there watching this speech will know the Devon Tors hotel, a key landmark on a big roundabout. His father ran it as a boarding house. He, too, went to Australia, and was a single farmer in 1915 when he enlisted. He served with the Australian Imperial Force in France. Sadly, he died just after the war of influenza and pneumonia and was buried in the tiny village of Meavy on Dartmoor. He links to my favourite grave—not something I ever thought I would say, but when you work for the commission, that becomes what you talk about. It is the grave of a man called Charles Allen, who was also Australian. He is unique, because I believe that he has the only such grave in the UK with his photograph on it. He was a very handsome man. He was killed in 1917, and his granite stone cross in Efford cemetery has a little enamel plate with his photograph on. For those on a tour of the cemetery, it serves to show just who these young men were who lost their life. He came to the UK to do his basic training, but sadly died of illness before he even started. We also have a member of the South African Native Labour Corps buried in Wembury, in probably the most picturesque location for a headstone; it overlooks the south Devon coast. Finally, I want to speak of a family, the Tuckers of Yealmpton. Three brothers were killed between 12 March 1917 and 10 August 1918. They are commemorated in Tyne Cot, and in two French cemeteries. One is missing—we do not know where he is buried— but his brothers have graves. All of them are commemorated by the family back home in Devon. A further Tucker, not related, was born in South Africa and is also commemorated in my constituency, in Plymouth. He died at the age of 33 and is buried in Plympton. Why is that important? We must keep these stories alive; that is more pertinent than ever. I will just flag that War Graves Week is from 16 to 24 May, so there will be plenty of opportunity for Members to show their appreciation for the work of the commission then.
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that this is where the role of the public engagement co-ordinators at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is so important, as they go out to tell those stories? We have graves right around the country of Indian, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh service personnel. Ensuring that communities understand that they are in our midst is very important, as is highlighting the Neuve-Chapelle memorial to the Indians on the western front as well.
Does the hon. Member agree that a significant contribution was also made by the 140,000-strong Chinese Labour Corps, ironically enough, who came over from 1916 to do a lot of the work on the front, which then freed up the soldiers to do the fighting?
On the South African regiments, does my right hon. Friend agree it is vital that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission continues its work to honour those labourers, as it has done with the recent opening of a memorial in Cape Town—and, soon, in Kenya and Sierra Leone—with a commitment to do whatever it takes to ensure that those African labourers, who have not yet been commemorated, are commemorated in the future?
I put on record the Opposition’s thanks to officials working to get British nationals home and to our partners in the region for their exceptional support and the assistance they are giving to British nationals who are stuck in Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Iran is a world-leading state sponsor of terrorism. It plots lethal attacks on British soil and has murdered a generation of its own citizens. It poses an intolerable threat from its nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and hostile interference. Now, it is targeting British nationals. It has attacked RAF Akrotiri, putting hundreds of lives at risk, and it is attacking our allies in the region with unprovoked aggression. Britain cannot sit on the fence. Our adversaries must know that we will not stand back when our allies are under such attack. I pay tribute to our incredible armed forces on British bases; their families are in our thoughts. Hundreds of thousands of British nationals are stuck in the region. Following the failed repatriation flight last night, they want to know what the Government are doing to bring them back home. They are trapped in the region, and getting them back is an enormous exercise. Ministers must be honest about all their actions. How many British nationals do the Government have the capacity to repatriate through charter flights? Our Gulf friends have negotiated an air corridor, which both Emirates and Etihad Airways are maximising to repatriate foreign nationals. What plans are in place to secure the use of airspace to facilitate flights for our nationals? What are the Government doing to try to protect British nationals in the region, including Craig and Lindsay Foreman who are detained in Iran? Was that case raised when the murderous Iranian terror regime’s representative in London was eventually summoned yesterday? Given Iran’s actions, why was he not expelled? The fallout from the conflict requires Britain to stand up for our country and for our national interests. If ever there was a time for UK leadership, it is now. That leads me to ask, why is the Foreign Secretary not here today? She should be here giving the statement. Instead, we see reports of the Prime Minister being forced by his Cabinet into sitting on the fence—including by Britain’s weak and feeble Foreign Secretary. She has failed in her duty to stand up for Britain’s place in the world, failed to work with our allies to promote our national interests in the region, and failed to provide the leadership needed to protect our military personnel, our bases and British nationals. Where is Britain in the region? What do the provisions of the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement with Bahrain mean for the response to this situation? It was meant to build long-term security and stability across the middle east. Why was Britain so woefully unprepared? Ten days ago, the Foreign Secretary was in Washington claiming to have held successful meetings with her counterpart. What was her response when Iran was discussed? Did she just wave the white flag of surrender and tell her Department not to engage with the United States as it made these plans, and on the action that followed? Britain’s allies are raging against the UK’s feebleness. Bahrain, the UAE and Cyprus, as well as the United States, are reported to be angered and disappointed by this Labour Government’s shameful weakness to stand up to aggressors. Within hours of the attack on Cyprus, Greece sent two frigates and four F-16 planes, while Britain is still working out when HMS Dragon will depart the UK. The situation is shameful and embarrassing. Never in the history of this great nation have a Government been so feeble at a time when our people and our allies are under assault. This is no time to sit on the sidelines as the Iranian regime and its proxies target everyone. When will the Government get British nationals home? What will be done to strengthen our defences in the region and work with our allies? What are the Government doing with our allies to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? When will Ministers act over the regime’s illegal funding source? The fact is that senior figures in that despotic regime have been parking their wealth and assets in London while repressing their own people. When will Ministers ensure that the UK’s financial system and institutions are not facilitating and hosting funds? By the way, I say to Ministers that I have repeatedly asked these questions before. Finally, when will the Government ban the murderous revolutionary guards and bring forward the emergency legislation that we are all calling for? This is not a time for Britain to be silent. Britain must work with our allies to defend our national security and confront this vile and despotic regime with strength and resolve.
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that I must conclude this session in around 15 minutes. Questions must be shorter and the answers just as sharp.
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order, and I can confirm that I have not been given notice of a further statement by the Government. Major policy announcements should be made to the House first, as Mr Speaker has frequently reiterated. There has been a written ministerial statement today, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the feedback about Members having a chance to scrutinise. The Table Office or the Journal Office may be able to advise on such opportunities for the statutory instrument that has been mentioned. I can see Front Benchers nodding affirmatively. Bill Presented Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order Nos. 50 and 57) Darren Jones, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, James Murray, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Chris Ward presented a Bill to make provision about the maximum number of salaries that may be paid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 in respect of certain ministerial offices. Bill read the First time, to be read a Second time on Monday 9 March, and to be printed (Bill 401). Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Question agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
I call Jas Athwal, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Back Benchers are on a six-minute speaking limit.
I just want to put on the record that I talk about the work of Noor Inayat Khan to my daughter, Farah, so her legacy will not be forgotten.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
Well, follow that, Minister.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
The Minister has finished speaking, but the hon. Member does get to wind up the debate.
Where is Yvette?
As the son of a man who fought in the second world war, I am privileged to be able to sum up on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in this debate about those who fell in the first world war and the vital contribution made by Commonwealth troops during that epic conflict. The first world war turned out to be a manpower-intensive conflict in which the contribution of Commonwealth troops was invaluable. The National Army Museum at Chelsea estimates that over 3 million soldiers and labourers from across what was then the British empire, today the Commonwealth, served alongside the British Army in multiple theatres of operations. We have heard a number of erudite and touching tributes from hon. Members to that effect this afternoon, and I will refer to a few of them, but before I do there is one other important point I want to make. Where is Reform? We are here to debate the contribution of people from all nations, of all colours, of all cultures, made 100 years or more ago, to defending the freedom of what was then the empire and is now the Commonwealth. Why is Reform’s Bench yet again empty when we debate defence-related matters? If those plastic patriots who love to wrap themselves in the flag aspire to be a party of government, let them at least come to this House and behave like it. Turning to the contributions of Members, I commend the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing this debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so brilliantly. He spoke memorably about the extraordinary contribution of the Indian Army—Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs all joined together as one army fighting for freedom against tyranny. He said that honour transcends borders. He was right. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke very knowledgably about the vital work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, not least because she worked for it. She highlighted the commission’s marvellous endeavours to commemorate the sacrifices that were made in defence of freedom. On behalf of my party, I would like to commend the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for everything that it does. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke powerfully about the contribution of the Indian Army, and especially its Muslim regiments. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) followed her in a similar vein and spoke in particular about the Sikh regiments who have a proud martial tradition in British service, not least in the first world war. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made, if I might say, a very socialist contribution, but he also paid tribute to those who served. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) paid a fulsome tribute to Commonwealth troops. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), reminded us that after the largely regular British Expeditionary Force was wiped out while holding the line in 1914, it was eventually citizens’ armies, including from the Commonwealth, who replaced it to win the war. As there were multiple contributions from across the empire and the Commonwealth during the First World War, it would be invidious to attempt to highlight any one as more important than the others. It might be better to attempt to summarise briefly—in the few minutes that I have to cover a war that lasted four years—some of the national contributions to the wider war effort. I begin with the Canadians. Following the outbreak of the war, Canada established the Canadian Expeditionary Force, principally for service on the western front. The Canadians fought in many of the major battles in that theatre, including the second Ypres, the Somme, Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele. In so doing, they were supported by troops from Newfoundland, although that did not formally become part of Canada until after the second world war. The Newfoundland regiment also fought at Gallipoli and then on the western front, including in the so-called last hundred days when the allied armies—the British Army in particular, but with Commonwealth support—broke the back of the German army in the field. That victory, fully utilising the principle of combined operations including infantry, artillery, tanks and aircraft working in concert, should not be underestimated. It is often highlighted by military historians as a significant feat of arms, completely contrary to what might be called the “Blackadder” version of the history of the first world war.
I see that the Minister is nodding in assent. The Australians also made a major contribution to the first world war. Over 400,000 served in what was known as the Australian Imperial Force. Over half of them became casualties, either killed or wounded. Perhaps the most famous Australian contribution, combined with their comrades from New Zealand, was in the ill-fated campaign at Gallipoli in 1915 when the Australian and New Zealand army corps, now forever known as the Anzacs, suffered heavy casualties attempting to overcome the extremely well dug-in Turkish defences on the peninsula. Nevertheless, it is important to record that Anzac troops also served bravely in other theatres of war, not least in the middle east and on the western front. India, which many hon. Members referred to, made the largest contribution from the Commonwealth, particularly if we include those from what is now modern day Bangladesh and Pakistan. I think it contributed more than a million troops in total over the course of the first world war. I should declare an interest here as my great-grandfather-in-law Colonel William Sanders served as part of the Indian Army, and at one time commanded a battery of artillery towed by elephants. [Interruption.] He did. He then transferred to the Royal Garrison Artillery on the western front, winning a Distinguished Service Order at the battle of St Quentin, about which the family are obviously proud. The Indian Army of today, and its Bangladeshi and Pakistani counterparts, maintain proud regimental histories that date back to their actions in the first world war. South African regiments also made an important contribution to the allied war effort, including the 1st South African Brigade, who famously fought at Delville Wood, which the troops nicknamed “Devil’s Wood”, on the Somme. Given what they went through, that was probably appropriate. The South Africans fought not just on the western front but against German troops on the African continent itself, including in both east and south-west Africa. It is also important to record the contribution of some 60,000 black South Africans who served mainly in support and logistical roles rather than as frontline infantry but nevertheless made an important contribution to the allied war effort, as indeed was recognised by General Jan Smuts.
My hon. Friend is clearly a subject matter expert. I entirely agree with her sentiment about both the contribution of those South African labourers and the vital work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. It is also important to commemorate the contribution of Caribbean troops to the allied war effort. Most of them, as we have heard, served in the West Indies Regiment, which saw combat in France, Italy, Africa and the middle east. Indeed, that was pointed out in particular by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. Albeit from a different conflict, I can reveal to the House that the records of the ship’s company of HMS Victory at Trafalgar record the presence of a seaman whose name was John Francois. He was on Victory. I do not believe he was a direct relative, as he was recruited from the Caribbean—none the less, I can assure the House that there was at least one Francois at Trafalgar who served on the British side. In the limited time available, I have been able to refer with only the briefest outline to the contribution of troops from across the British empire and the Commonwealth to what was believed—at that time, at least—to be the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, that proved not to be the case; the world was involved in a second major conflagration barely two decades later. Let us passionately hope that in our lifetimes—indeed, in those of our children and grandchildren—we never see a third. Although I say humbly to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, as the Roman military theorist Vegetius taught us, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”: he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. In thinking of how to conclude, I came upon some lines from Rupert Brooke. In his eternal poem “The Soldier”, he wrote: “If I should die, think only this of me: That there’s some corner of a foreign field That is for ever England.” If that be so—and I believe it to be so—then there is also a part of a neighbouring field that is forever Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, South African, Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani, and African and Caribbean, too. Without the contribution of all those nations from right across what was then the empire and is now the Commonwealth, we would never have defeated the militarism of the Kaiser’s Germany, and Europe undoubtedly would never have been free. We thank them all and their nations for their service. Lest we forget.
After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?
The Minister knows very well that the choice was that of the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. His party promised to respect the result of that referendum but is instead seeking to row back on it. Members of the House and the wider public will have heard that the Minister clearly did not rule out the UK having to adopt new European Union legislation. The Minister will know from his time as shadow International Trade Secretary that we would never accept a trade agreement where the arbiter is an institution on one side, so can he at least rule out having the European Court of Justice as a body adjudicating in any disputes that follow from his reset?
For many of my constituents, a daily postal delivery is a fiction, with post sometimes taking weeks to arrive. That includes letters about hospital appointments and other important appointments, which often arrive after the appointments have happened. Can we have a debate in Government time on the performance of Royal Mail and its responsibilities under the universal service obligation?
Last Thursday the Minister for Energy visited my constituency, which was much appreciated, to discuss the fall-out from Lindsey oil refinery going into administration, and how we boost the local economy following the number of redundancies that will occur. As business leaders keep pointing out to me, it is vital that we improve transport connections to northern Lincolnshire, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate about that, or perhaps a meeting for me and other local MPs with the appropriate Minister?
Representing the constituency of Brigg and Immingham as I do, I recognise that the renewable energy sector is attracting investment and jobs into the area. However, I have thousands of people who work in energy-intensive industries, and their jobs are increasingly at risk. As with everything, compromise and balance are important. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that the energy costs for industry are crippling many businesses? We must do something to address that.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she has done on this issue. Two hospices serve my constituency—Lindsey Lodge in Scunthorpe, and St Andrew’s in Grimsby—and the percentage of funding that they get through the NHS, as opposed to from charity, varies dramatically. Does she agree that, at very least, we must regularise the proportion of funding that hospices receive from the Government?
Why did the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) resign as a Cabinet Office Minister at the weekend?
May I thank the Minister for his statement, and express a certain amount of sympathy? Like him, I ran evacuations under fire, and it is pretty chaotic. He and his officials will inevitably attract some criticism—that is the nature of the beast, as he knows. At Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a number of pre-emptive measures that he took prior to the conflict starting. It was quite a long list, and included surface-to-air missiles and the radar early warning system. The one obvious gap in that list was sending a ship to the Mediterranean, which is now obviously the first thing that the Government have done as a result of events. Was the decision not to send the ship as part of that pre-emptory package a question of capability or intent? Was it that the Government could not send a ship, or that they did not want to?